I'm curious. I asked a question about this the other day in another thread and didn't really get an answer.
Why have mancunians taken to referring to the city centre part of manchester (and by that I am including the parts of Salford etc.) as "Central" Manchester. I've also seen North, South, etc. Manchester.
It seems like a rather lame attempt to emulate London which is bizarre for two reasons:
1. You get the impression Manchester wants to be something different from London but yet appears to be setting London 'as standard'.
2. You can realistically walk around 'Central' Manchester. Buses/Trams are designed to get in to the city and out to the suburbs (ok, from a pratical save time point of view taking a bus from extremity city part A to part B must happen) - but in Central London walking from say Scotland Yard in Victoria to say the Gherkin in the city or even Canary Wharf would take hours (if not the best part of a day!) - there is a whole circuluar tube line devoted to getting getting you around west central London and then of course the DLR which connects the docklands to the city without even mentioning the 100s of bus routes purely designed to get people around central london.
Lets not dispute, Manchester is big influential city, but a metropolis it's not. The concept of Greater Manchester is pratical purely from an administrative point of view - its boroughs are very distinct and separate from each other.
So again, why call it Central Manchester? Is this a delusion of Grandeur? What exactly is wrong with just using 'City Centre' terminology? I'm not attacking Manchester or its strides to make progress but attempting to call a litre a gallon when its clearly not doesnt fool anyone (it didnt fool the IOC [twice!] ).
Im interested to hear your opinions....
Why have mancunians taken to referring to the city centre part of manchester (and by that I am including the parts of Salford etc.) as "Central" Manchester. I've also seen North, South, etc. Manchester.
It seems like a rather lame attempt to emulate London which is bizarre for two reasons:
1. You get the impression Manchester wants to be something different from London but yet appears to be setting London 'as standard'.
2. You can realistically walk around 'Central' Manchester. Buses/Trams are designed to get in to the city and out to the suburbs (ok, from a pratical save time point of view taking a bus from extremity city part A to part B must happen) - but in Central London walking from say Scotland Yard in Victoria to say the Gherkin in the city or even Canary Wharf would take hours (if not the best part of a day!) - there is a whole circuluar tube line devoted to getting getting you around west central London and then of course the DLR which connects the docklands to the city without even mentioning the 100s of bus routes purely designed to get people around central london.
Lets not dispute, Manchester is big influential city, but a metropolis it's not. The concept of Greater Manchester is pratical purely from an administrative point of view - its boroughs are very distinct and separate from each other.
So again, why call it Central Manchester? Is this a delusion of Grandeur? What exactly is wrong with just using 'City Centre' terminology? I'm not attacking Manchester or its strides to make progress but attempting to call a litre a gallon when its clearly not doesnt fool anyone (it didnt fool the IOC [twice!] ).
Im interested to hear your opinions....